State of Maharashtra vs Nitin Siddeshwar Gaikwad Advocate - Shanbag Mahesh Sadanand — 46/2017
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 420,465,467,468,471,34. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
R.C.C. - Regular Criminal Case
CNR: MHSN100007372017
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
549/2017
Filing Date
20-06-2017
Registration No
46/2017
Registration Date
20-06-2017
Court
Civil Court Junior Division,Vita
Judge
6-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Vita
FIR Details
FIR Number
79
Police Station
Vita Police Station
Year
2016
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra
Adv. A P P
Respondent(s)
Nitin Siddeshwar Gaikwad Advocate - Shanbag Mahesh Sadanand
Alka Siddeshwar Gaikwad(Name quashed from charge-sheet/complaint)
Adv. Shanbag Mahesh Sadanand
Hearing History
Judge: 6-IInd Jt.Civil Judge J.D. J.M.F.C. Vita
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 19-01-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 15-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 07-10-2025 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 05-08-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary: The application filed by accused no.2 for discharge under Section 239 CrPC was rejected. The court found prima facie evidence of accused no.2's involvement in the fraudulent sale deeds (IPC Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34), as she gave consent to the transaction and received consideration along with accused no.1. The court rejected the defense argument that her HIV treatment status warranted discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The application filed by accused no.2 for discharge under Section 239 CrPC was rejected. The court found prima facie evidence of accused no.2's involvement in the fraudulent sale deeds (IPC Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w 34), as she gave consent to the transaction and received consideration along with accused no.1. The court rejected the defense argument that her HIV treatment status warranted discharge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts